Dismissed

Indian Bank v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC12 Jan 2016CWJC/5225/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Petitioner Bank challenged the Labour Commissioner's order awarding gratuity to Kaushal Kishore Thakur. The Court held that the statutory appeal remedy under Section 7(7) was adequate and that extraordinary writ jurisdiction could not be invoked, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed. The petitioner is directed to invoke provisions of the Payment of Gratuity Act to assail the impugned order.

Indian Bank Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5225 of 2013

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

Indian Bank A Body Corporate Constituted Under Banking Companies (Acquisition And Transfer Of Undertakings) Act Of 1970, Having Its Corporate Office At 254-260, Avvai Shanmugham Salai, Royapettah, Chennai,- 600014 Represented By Its General Manager And Having Its Zonal Office At I Floor, Govind Bhawan, New Dakbanglow Road, Patna Amongst Other Zonal Officer And Branches In Other Places, All Over India.

¶5

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Labour And Employment, New Delhi.

¶8

The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Patna Cum The Controlling Authority Under The Payment Of Gratuity Act, 1972, Maurya Lok Complex, 2nd Floor, A- Block, Room No. 17, Patna.

¶9

Kaushal Kishore Thakur S/O Late Braj Kishore Thakur Flat No. 302, Raj Kishori Apartment, Kavi Raman Path, P.S- Buddha Colony, District- Patna.

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Dr. Vinay Kumar Singh,

¶12

Mr. Amit Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha

¶13

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-01-2016

¶14

Heard Dr. Binay Kumar Singh for the petitioner and Mr.

¶15

Anil Kumar Sinha for the respondent no. 3.

¶16

The order dated 18.1.2013 assailed in the writ petition is passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner(Central), Patna on an application filed by the respondent no. 3 under the Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972 (for short „the Act‟). The Authority under the impugned order directed for payment of gratuity to the respondent no. 3. Aggrieved thereby, the writ petition has been filed.

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.5225 of 2013 dt.12-01-2016

¶18

2/3

¶19

It has been submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 3 that the petitioner Bank has an alternative and efficacious remedy which is statutory in nature. He refers in this regard to Section 7(7) of the Act which reads as under:-

¶20

“Section-7(7) Any person aggrieved by an order under sub-section (4) may, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order, prefer an appeal to the appropriate Government or such other authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf.

¶21

Provided that the appropriate Government or the appellate authority, as the case may be, may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the said period of sixty days, extend the said period for a further period of sixty days.

¶22

Provided further that no appeal by an employer shall be admitted unless at the time of preferring the appeal, the appellant either produces a certificate of the controlling authority to the effect that the appellant has deposited with him an amount equal to the amount of gratuity required to be deposited under sub-section (4), or deposits with the appellate authority such amount.”

¶23

Dr. Singh, on the other hand, submits that the alternative

¶24

remedy is not a bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction in case the authority passed an order completely without jurisdiction or in blatant breach of the provision.

¶25

In my view, the jurisdiction exercised by the Authority under the Act cannot be said to be completely without jurisdiction. It is a matter of interpretation of certain expression used in the Act and the reasons assigned therefor by the Authority. It has also been

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.5225 of 2013 dt.12-01-2016

¶27

3/3

¶28

brought to the notice of the Court that a writ petition is pending at the instance of the respondent no. 3 for payment of his legal/admissible post retiral dues.

¶29

Be that as it may, considering the submissions of the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I am not persuaded to invoke the extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction. The writ application is dismissed.

¶30

If so advised, the petitioner Bank may invoke the provisions of the Act to assail the order dated 18.1.2013 passed by the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Central, Patna after seeking condonation of delay.

¶31

Pankaj/-

¶32

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶33

Indian Bank v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indian Bank v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bihar Asainik Seva Swabalambi Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd. Vs The Chairman Cum M.d.d. Bank Of India and Ors.

Most. Guljari Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs He Bihar Human Right Commission and Ors.

Satya Narain Gadodiya @ Satya Vs Pawan Kumar Gadodiya and Ors.

Smt.tara Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.